Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I dunno if this is on-topic, the topic being sludge and advertising claims. However, RP is one company making some very outrageous claims and at lest, it seems Castrol is at least referencing a real industry oil standard and yeah, DID in fact run some test sequences, but as was said TV is a poor forum for technical comparisons.
My point about GTX vs RP is too, that I used some RP recently, a heavy 15w-40 and it burned off like CRAZY. That same car (Volvo V70) now has plain GTX 10w-30 nad has burned not a drop. It's not sludge, but consumption and deposits can be correlated. I mention that story because some people are running to leap off the Castrol bandwagon. I don't see where it's a bad SM-spec oil at all.
True, But since RP is a group IV oil, with a very robust additive pack, I would belive RP before the bargin dino GTX.
But I do see your point.
I dunno if this is on-topic, the topic being sludge and advertising claims. However, RP is one company making some very outrageous claims and at lest, it seems Castrol is at least referencing a real industry oil standard and yeah, DID in fact run some test sequences, but as was said TV is a poor forum for technical comparisons.
My point about GTX vs RP is too, that I used some RP recently, a heavy 15w-40 and it burned off like CRAZY. That same car (Volvo V70) now has plain GTX 10w-30 nad has burned not a drop. It's not sludge, but consumption and deposits can be correlated. I mention that story because some people are running to leap off the Castrol bandwagon. I don't see where it's a bad SM-spec oil at all.
True, But since RP is a group IV oil, with a very robust additive pack, I would belive RP before the bargin dino GTX.
But I do see your point.